It states the vehicle cannot shoot on a turn it rams, can the squad inside it shoot if the ram was under 6"?

Nothing prevents them from doing so.

Nothing prevents the unit inside from shooting, as long as the vehicle has not moved over 6"

No, they cannot
Ramming Rules, p.69: ". . . the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."
Fire Points, p.66: " . . . may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at cruising speed this turn."

Highest speed a tank is capable of is cruising speed. Just because it does not achieve this speed does not mean you are not moving at it. The Ramming Rules reference moving at cruising speed as the reason you are unable to fire your vehicle's weapons. If you are moving at cruising, models embarked can't fire either.

Edit: If it worked as you described it, the tank would still be able to fire it's guns, as it then would not be moving at cruising speed. The ramming rules prevent this by automatically placing you at cruising speed.

Irdiumstern wrote:No, they cannot
Ramming Rules, p.69: ". . . the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."
Fire Points, p.66: " . . . may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at cruising speed this turn."

Highest speed a tank is capable of is cruising speed. Just because it does not achieve this speed does not mean you are not moving at it. The Ramming Rules reference moving at cruising speed as the reason you are unable to fire your vehicle's weapons. If you are moving at cruising, models embarked can't fire either.

Right but I think the point is that if it gets stopped (unable to destroy the rammed vehicle) then it only went 5" which was its maximum speed. I think they could still shoot as long as they don't go over 6".

In this hypothetical case, let's say I did go the maximum I could, which was into an enemy vehicle that was 5" away.

Akroma06 wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:No, they cannot
Ramming Rules, p.69: ". . . the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."
Fire Points, p.66: " . . . may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at cruising speed this turn."

Highest speed a tank is capable of is cruising speed. Just because it does not achieve this speed does not mean you are not moving at it. The Ramming Rules reference moving at cruising speed as the reason you are unable to fire your vehicle's weapons. If you are moving at cruising, models embarked can't fire either.

Right but I think the point is that if it gets stopped (unable to destroy the rammed vehicle) then it only went 5" which was its maximum speed. I think they could still shoot as long as they don't go over 6".

But the point is you declared your ramming so your vehicle is considered to be moving at cruising speed, even if you immoblize yourself an inch into that ram attempt.

I don't see it say 'you are considered to have moved at cruising speed' anywhere on that page, just that you must move at the highest speed it is capable of (5").

The vehicle can't shoot because it says in the Ram rules that it cannot.

Rythem wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:No, they cannot
Ramming Rules, p.69: ". . . the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."
Fire Points, p.66: " . . . may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at cruising speed this turn."

Highest speed a tank is capable of is cruising speed. Just because it does not achieve this speed does not mean you are not moving at it. The Ramming Rules reference moving at cruising speed as the reason you are unable to fire your vehicle's weapons. If you are moving at cruising, models embarked can't fire either.

Right but I think the point is that if it gets stopped (unable to destroy the rammed vehicle) then it only went 5" which was its maximum speed. I think they could still shoot as long as they don't go over 6".

But the point is you declared your ramming so your vehicle is considered to be moving at cruising speed, even if you immoblize yourself an inch into that ram attempt.

Movement is based on just that though; movement. If you only move 5" due to the ram not exploding the vehicle, you'll stop and have move 5". Also if you immobilize yourself 1" you hadnt moved at Cruising speed either

I agree with Irdiumsterm. You are moving at a max speed which is cruising speed, or flat-out for fast. 5" is not a speed, it's a distance.

Kaliber wrote:I agree with Irdiumsterm. You are moving at a max speed which is cruising speed, or flat-out for fast. 5" is not a speed, it's a distance.

Isn't speed based on the distance that you travelled?

Akroma06 wrote:

Kaliber wrote:I agree with Irdiumsterm. You are moving at a max speed which is cruising speed, or flat-out for fast. 5" is not a speed, it's a distance.

Isn't speed based on the distance that you travelled?

Well, riddle this one. A unit is embarked in a skimmer in terrain. You declare that it is moving flat out but immobilize the transport trying to leave terrain. Is the unit inside destroyed? Transport never actually moved but was attempting to move flat out.

That's like declaring a tank shock with an immobilized skimmer. Beings its already immobilized it won't be destroyed but would get a 4+ save if it was a fast skimmer.

If you only move 5" you didnt move cruising speed, nor flat out.

Read the first two sentences of the ramming rules. The vehicle being unable to shoot is dependent on it moving at cruising speed in the second sentence. It is clarifying the rules text from another page, not saying that the vehicle can't shoot due to the ram attempt.

From this, it follows that the movement distance you declare for the vehicle is what counts for all subsequent questions, even if it is less than the distance traveled.

It's the same as rolling for difficult terrain. Suppose you roll 2 (or 3, with Move through cover) 1s. Even if you don't move your models, they are considered to have moved for the purposes of firing. Additionally, the speed tells you the maximum number of inches you may move. Ramming uses cruising speed (generally), which means you may move up to 12" but are not required to move that far.

Iridium - thaty is totally wrong. The restriction on ramming is because of the ram, not because of how far it went.

For example a superheavy tank, max speed 6", canram andno matter what the unit inide can shoot.

Your "speed" is entirely based on how far you have moved, not the other way round. If you move 5" a unit inside can shoot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Iridium - thaty is totally wrong. The restriction on ramming is because of the ram, not because of how far it went.

For example a superheavy tank, max speed 6", canram andno matter what the unit inide can shoot.

Your "speed" is entirely based on how far you have moved, not the other way round. If you move 5" a unit inside can shoot.

How about, for once, you actually look at the rulebook before you chime in? Ramming, Pg. 69, bottom of page, first and second sentence under ramming. A superheavy vehicle follows different rules entirely, is not part of the core rules, and, if I'm not mistaken, specifically states that units inside may always fire.
Top speed means Top speed, not that you can meander forward until something gets in your way. Just because something did in fact stop you does not mean you are suddenly not putting all your effort into driving.

If it was the way you described, a player could attempt to move at Cruising speed, and if reaching a wood 5 inches into movement and getting immobilized, be able to still fire normally.

SH - Youre mistaken.

Already read the rules, and discussed this previously, oddly enough.

The rule simply states that concentrating on driving at high speeds means the vehicle is unable to fire. Thats it. Not "because you have to move at least cruising speed...", nothing like that at all.

You have to move as fast as possible, in this case "as far as possible" is 5", meaning you are moving cruising speed.

It does work the way i described. Your method, not using movement to determine speed band, has no basis in the rules.

Irdiumstern wrote:If it was the way you described, a player could attempt to move at Cruising speed, and if reaching a wood 5 inches into movement and getting immobilized, be able to still fire normally.

That is exactly how it would work.

You never have to declare what speed you are moving at. The speed you are moving at is determined by how far the vehicle actually moves. Intent has nothing to do with it.

So they put the "This means" at the beginning of the second sentence for the fun of it, instead of clarifying that the vehicle has to move at cruising speed? I rather doubt it.

I mean, I'd love being able to do short range rams with my battlewagons and still pour out the whole mess of firepower inside. It's just that the rules tell you the vehicle moves at max speed, which means your peons aren't shooting.

Grakmar is right you never have to say how fast you are moving. It is determined by the distance that you travel. If you have to use 7" to ram then you went cruising speed, and that is your max. If you only go 5" however you went combat speed and that is your max speed.
@ don mondo As for the skimmer comparison with guys inside. It has little bearing on this discussion but I'll answer it anyway. They wouldn't die nor would they get a cover due to moving flat out. You havne't gone that far yet. So if I rolled a 1 I'm immobilised right there. Now if I ended a flat out move in terrain and rolled a 1 both the transport and squad are dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Irdiumstern wrote:So they put the "This means" at the beginning of the second sentence for the fun of it, instead of clarifying that the vehicle has to move at cruising speed? I rather doubt it.

I mean, I'd love being able to do short range rams with my battlewagons and still pour out the whole mess of firepower inside. It's just that the rules tell you the vehicle moves at max speed, which means your peons aren't shooting.

No its there to tell you that if you do go through the enemy vehicle that you have to keep going. That you don't declare distance as with a tank shock or just decide to stop once you are done rolling through the enemy.

Pg 69, second paragraph:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. (emphasis mine). If the highest speed capable is cruising, then you move at cruising speed, even if you only move 3".

Happyjew wrote:Pg 69, second paragraph:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. If the highest speed capable is cruising, then you move at cruising speed, even if you only move 3".

It is capable of. Emphasis mine. If you can only go 5" then you are only capable of going combat speed.

Happyjew wrote: If the highest speed capable is cruising, then you move at cruising speed, even if you only move 3".

But if you only move 3", you didn't move at cruising speed.

Speed is entirely dependent on the distance the vehicle actually travels. The vehicle will attempt to move as far as it can, but if something stops it then it only moved as far as it moved.


I wouldn't have a problem with a house rule forbidding units inside from shooting that turn, but I'm not seeing anything in the normal rules that forbids it.

Happyjew wrote:Pg 69, second paragraph:
Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of. (emphasis mine). If the highest speed capable is cruising, then you move at cruising speed, even if you only move 3".

So if my tank is only capable of going 3" due to an enemy vehicle that didn't explode when I rammed it, Guess I only moved combat speed as I cannot go further beings the enemy vehicle didn't explode

I understand the original question of weather or not the unit inside a DECLARED ramming vehicle gets to shoot out of the vehicle seems hinged on deciding if you take into account the vehicle's max speed or the distance it actually traveled. So the scenario is that if the vehicle moves more than 6" that the unit inside is too disrupted by the SPEED of the ride to effectively shoot out of the vehicle. Note that even on a smooth road, Cruising Speed would still prevent the unit from firing. You don't get the extra 6" added to Combat Speed.

Now imagine a DECLARED ramming vehicle moving with such speed (not distance) to prevent the unit inside from firing and it just happens to suddenly stop short because of an impact (which I would imagine to be rather more disruptive to unit inside than just moving at Cruising Speed).

Also, in the spirit of the rules that govern the effect of the INTENTION of transport vehicle movement on units, I am reminded of pg 70, second column, paragraph 9, FAST VEHICLES: Fast Transport Vehicles: "Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the movement phase." The phrase in parenthesis refers to the INTENTION of the vehicle to move Flat Out means it does not stop or slow down enough to take on or let go troops, regardless of the distance it actually moves. I also refer to the etiquette of declaring Turbo-boosts and Flat Out BEFORE measuring these distances still effects the shooting abilities of these models regardless of how far they actually moved.

So I say no, they cannot fire from a DECLARED ramming vehicle whose max speed is greater than Combat Speed.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:
Also, in the spirit of the rules that govern the effect of the INTENTION of transport vehicle movement on units, I am reminded of pg 70, second column, paragraph 9, FAST VEHICLES: Fast Transport Vehicles: "Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in the movement phase." The phrase in parenthesis refers to the INTENTION of the vehicle to move Flat Out means it does not stop or slow down enough to take on or let go troops, regardless of the distance it actually moves.
.

There is a major diference here though;

you may not embark/disembark if you're going to move flat out. (intent of moving flat out)
and
move at the highest speed possible ( if I ram something 5" away I'll probably stop) I'm intending on moving at combat speed unless I somehow manage to blow it up


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and just to cross reference,
"models may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at cruising speed that turn" 66 BGB

Cruising speed as defined by RAW
"more than 6" and up to 12"" 57 BGB

Here's my understanding.

Ramming is a special type of tank shock. With a tank shock, you simply declare how far you'll be going, i.e. "I will charge my Battlewagon 1" forward in the hope to dislodge your marines!" With a Ram, you must move at the highest speed possible, rather than choosing how fast you want to go. However, the last paragraph for Tank Shock on p.68 states that if a tank moves slowly enough (Combat speed) it may fire as normal. Since there's nothing stating that the vehicles immediately count as having moved at cruising speed in order to ram, the only way to determine the actual speed is by the distance traveled. Therefore if the vehicle moved less than 6" it should follow that normal combat speed rules apply for the vehicles and passengers alike.

@ James Dean: Yes, there are differences. I was only referencing Flat Out for the spirit of the rules, in which your intentions are taken into account.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:move at the highest speed possible ( if I ram something 5" away I'll probably stop) I'm intending on moving at combat speed unless I somehow manage to blow it up

You cannot INTEND on moving at Combat Speed if you make a Ramming attack.

Pg 68, col 1, par 6, line 1, TANKS: Tank Shock!: "To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move."
Pg 69, col 2, par 1, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move and must be executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

When you DECLARE a ramming attack, you are DECLARING that you are going to move at the vehicle's highest speed possible, whether you move less distance than that speed allows or not. Therefore the unit inside should be treated as having moved the max speed of the vehicle. Basically, the driver guns it and then comes to a krumping stop when he hits something that doesn't give. He doesn't crawl carefully to the other vehicle and tap it with his bumper. The effect of this recklessness and acceleration on the unit embarked is taken into account when saying that the vehicle is treated as having moved the highest speed possible no matter what distance it traveled. Are you saying that this is not an effect, intention, and spirit of the Ramming rule?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:When you DECLARE a ramming attack, you are DECLARING that you are going to move at the vehicle's highest speed possible...

No you're not. You're delcaring that the vehicle is Ramming. You don't declare a speed... the vehicle simply moves as fast as possible.

Moving at Cruising speed requires the vehicle to have physically moved a certain distance. If you did not move that far, you did not move at Cruising speed.

No shooting from passengers.

With the declaration of how many inches you intend to move after pivoting, you are required to lock yourself into at least Cruising Speed.

It should be noted that Tank Shock and Ramming are done instead of moving normally. So each of these sections should be read looking for permission to do things that you can normally do during movement.

In the case of Tank Shock, you are given express permission that if the tank moved slowly enough during the tank shock attack the tank can still fire as normal during the shooting phase. Ramming has no such permission.

The issue of whether or not a vehicle's speed is determined by how far it moves or by some sort of declaration is not a simple answer because the rules are not consistent across the board and that makes this a real grey area.

The biggest bone of contention (as Don Mondo pointed out earlier) is in the rules for fast transports (pg 70), which say (emphasis mine):

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a fast vehicle if it has moved (or is going to move) flat out in that Movement phase."


Now let's take a scenario where a unit embarks onto a fast transport vehicle and that fast transport vehicle then wants to ram an enemy vehicle. Now, after the ram is declared, the distance to the enemy vehicle is found to be 11"...under the rate for moving 'flat-out'...but of course if the ram is successful in exploding the enemy vehicle then the ram continues!

So obviously if vehicle speed is determined solely by how far a vehicle moves (which is only known after the vehicle finishes moving), then how can the rule for fast transports be followed? Clearly the rules in some cases seem to suggest that you *do* have to declare what 'speed' you are going to move your vehicle while at other times they seem to clearly suggest that only the actual movement by the vehicle is what determines its movement 'speed'.


So there is NO clear way to play this IMHO.


With that said, my own opinion is as follows:

Since the majority of the rules seem to suggest that the actual movement of the vehicle is what determines what 'speed' the vehicle moves and therefore that is what is counted in the majority of the situations. For example, after a lot of thought I do think that if a vehicle rams another vehicle but only ends up moving 5", then yes, the models embarked on the ramming vehicle can still shoot as the vehicle only ended up moving combat speed.

However, the flat-out rule means you have to make a special exception in certain situations. If a vehicle is capable of moving flat-out and a unit embarked onto it that turn, you would be unable to ram with that transport, regardless of how close the enemy vehicle is you are ramming because there is a possibility that the enemy vehicle could explode and then the ramming vehicle would end up moving flat-out (which it isn't allowed to do since a unit embarked on it that turn).

Similarly, if a fast transport skimmer was starting its turn in difficult terrain, I would play that the player has to declare whether or not they intend to move flat-out because I believe this is required to follow the restriction against a unit disembarking from a vehicle that 'is going to move' flat-out that turn. So even though the skimmer may end up not moving any actual distance (getting immobilized when starting its movement), it would still 'count' as having moved flat-out in this particular case.

Finally, when it just comes to whether a skimmer moving flat-out is destroyed instead of immobilized, although the rules state that you only count if the vehicle moved flat-out in its 'last turn' I humbly believe that this was clearly written not thinking about the skimmer getting destroyed in its OWN movement phase (since the rule is written in the 'shooting at skimmers' section). Therefore, I don't think it makes any sense if a skimmer moved flat-out in its PREVIOUS turn and then in its CURRENT turn only moves 6" into some terrain that it should suddenly be destroyed instead of immobilized. So I play that when a skimmer has to take a dangerous terrain test in its own movement phase, again you essentially have to declare whether or not you intend to move the skimmer 'flat-out' that phase, and that declaration determines whether or not the vehicle gets immobilized or destroyed if it fails its test.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:@ James Dean: Yes, there are differences. I was only referencing Flat Out for the spirit of the rules, in which your intentions are taken into account.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:move at the highest speed possible ( if I ram something 5" away I'll probably stop) I'm intending on moving at combat speed unless I somehow manage to blow it up

You cannot INTEND on moving at Combat Speed if you make a Ramming attack.

Pg 68, col 1, par 6, line 1, TANKS: Tank Shock!: "To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move."
Pg 69, col 2, par 1, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move and must be executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

When you DECLARE a ramming attack, you are DECLARING that you are going to move at the vehicle's highest speed possible, whether you move less distance than that speed allows or not. Therefore the unit inside should be treated as having moved the max speed of the vehicle.[color=darkred]this is where you're Wrong, Declaring isn't moving and there's nothing anywhere to stop me from shooting as the vehicle did not move at Cruising speed. Argue that if you like, but you're only tootin a broken horn cuz noone's listening.
[/color] Basically, the driver guns it and then comes to a krumping stop when he hits something that doesn't give. He doesn't crawl carefully to the other vehicle and tap it with his bumper. The effect of this recklessness and acceleration on the unit embarked is taken into account when saying that the vehicle is treated as having moved the highest speed possible no matter what distance it traveled. Are you saying that this is not an effect, intention, and spirit of the Ramming rule?

Spirit of a rule has no place in a RAW arguement. As it stands if it moves 6" or less I can shoot out of my Vehicle even if I rammed. Why? Simply because the rules tell me I can

I am going to expound on my second point a bit more;

Normal Movement: Permission to fire at combat, not fire at cruising unless permission given for faster speeds.

Tank Shock: Permission to fire if tank shock attack was done at combat speed unless permission given for faster speeds.

Ramming: No permission give at all for firing.

Each is their own separate rule that give their own each permissions within the rules. Tank Shock is not normal movement, but permission is given to reference the rules for shooting if you move slow enough. Ramming is not normal movement, and you are not given ANY permission to reference the rules for shooting if you go slow enough.

So it doesn't matter if you want to reference the rules for moving at combat speed for a Ram that on moved the tank 5", you are not given permission to reference said rules in the Ramming rules in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:@ James Dean: Yes, there are differences. I was only referencing Flat Out for the spirit of the rules, in which your intentions are taken into account.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:move at the highest speed possible ( if I ram something 5" away I'll probably stop) I'm intending on moving at combat speed unless I somehow manage to blow it up

You cannot INTEND on moving at Combat Speed if you make a Ramming attack.

Pg 68, col 1, par 6, line 1, TANKS: Tank Shock!: "To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move."
Pg 69, col 2, par 1, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move and must be executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of."

When you DECLARE a ramming attack, you are DECLARING that you are going to move at the vehicle's highest speed possible, whether you move less distance than that speed allows or not. Therefore the unit inside should be treated as having moved the max speed of the vehicle.[color=darkred]this is where you're Wrong, Declaring isn't moving and there's nothing anywhere to stop me from shooting as the vehicle did not move at Cruising speed. Argue that if you like, but you're only tootin a broken horn cuz noone's listening.
[/color] Basically, the driver guns it and then comes to a krumping stop when he hits something that doesn't give. He doesn't crawl carefully to the other vehicle and tap it with his bumper. The effect of this recklessness and acceleration on the unit embarked is taken into account when saying that the vehicle is treated as having moved the highest speed possible no matter what distance it traveled. Are you saying that this is not an effect, intention, and spirit of the Ramming rule?

Spirit of a rule has no place in a RAW arguement. As it stands if it moves 6" or less I can shoot out of my Vehicle even if I rammed. Why? Simply because the rules tell me I can

Please show me under the Ramming rules where you are given permission to fire.

Gladly, look under movement, than cross reference fire points.

If the Vehicle moves 6" or less you may fire. If in so ramming I only move 3" I may fire because ... the rules explicitly allow me to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
mind you my Example vehicle is a standard SM Rhino nothing fancy

That is fine forare normal movement rules for vehicles.

Tank Shock and Ramming are done specifically instead of moving normally. So show me in either of those rules where you are given permission to fire, and in this case specifically, under the rules for Ramming.

That's hilarious beings Ram is a Special kind of tank shock, and tank shock is a special kind of move. Which allows the exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through.

They all follow the same rules for movement... with a couple exceptions ...

Yea, I just checked Ramming on page 69, a rule that you do INSTEAD of moving normally and there is no permission to fire from a vehicle given there at all.

That's funny as a shocking tank may fire normally as well as all his cargoe assuming it hasn't moved too far.

The shooting rules are located under movement and firing points.


Its a special type of *movement* so look back to movement for more clarity

"Please show me under the Ramming rules where you are given permission to fire."
-Brother Ramses

I agree that tank shocks and rams are not normal moves. However, the permission to fire from inside a transport actually comes from the Fire Points rule, not the movement rules. See BGB p. 66. And I note that the Fire Points rule does not limit its use to vehicles which have executed a normal move, nor does it exclude vehicles which have tank shocked or rammed. The only limitations are:
1. One model per fire point
2. Firers count as moving if the vehicle moved at all
3. Passengers can't fire if the vehicle moved at cruising speed.

There's also a complete lack of any language about "declared move" or "intended move" in the fire points rule. All the fire points rule asks is: did the vehicle move at cruising speed. If the vehicle didn't move 6" or more, it didn't move at cruising speed, regardless of what it planned to do, wanted to do, etc. It seems simple to me. In the absence of "intends to move" language like the fast transports disembarkation rule, a vehicle's "intent" is completely irrelevant. So if a vehicle "intended" to move 12", but only moved 5", it moved at combat speed, not cruising speed, and its passengers can still fire.

There's also this language from the Vehicles and Assaults section to consider:

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

While there's certainly an argument that this rule is strictly limited to assaulting vehicles 'cause that's where it appears, it also appears to be strong evidence of GW's intent to determine a vehicle's movement for purposes of later phases by how far it actually moved in the movement phase, not how far it intended to move.

Brother Ramses wrote:Yea, I just checked Ramming on page 69, a rule that you do INSTEAD of moving normally and there is no permission to fire from a vehicle given there at all.

Yes, it is a special type of movement, but it would still follow the normal rules for moving (dangerous terrain tests for moving through terrain, not moving over friendly models, etc) except where specified otherwise (such as not being able to turn freely and being able to move within 1" of enemy models).


So yes, the normal rules allowing embarked models to fire would apply here to. The only question is whether or not a vehicle's movement speed can somehow be declared ahead of time, which as I've pointed out the rules seem to sometimes suggest is the case but most times do not.


THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER HERE.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:That's funny as a shocking tank may fire normally as well as all his cargoe assuming it hasn't moved too far.

The shooting rules are located under movement and firing points.


Its a special type of *movement* so look back to movement for more clarity

Tank Shock is given EXPLICIT permission to do that if it moved slow enough. Without that being included in the Tank Shock rules, you would not be able to because both Tank Shock and Ramming are done instead of moving normally.

Here is what kills your arguement;

Both Tank Shock and Ramming are not movement. They are special attacks that take place during the Movement Phase. They are both done instead of moving normally. Ergo you are only specificcally allowed to do what they give you express permission to do.

However Firing points explicitly allows me to as long as I have moved slow enough...

I found a rule that says I can so I will; permissive ruleset ftw

yakface wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Yea, I just checked Ramming on page 69, a rule that you do INSTEAD of moving normally and there is no permission to fire from a vehicle given there at all.

Yes, it is a special type of movement, but it would still follow the normal rules for moving (dangerous terrain tests for moving through terrain, not moving over friendly models, etc) except where specified otherwise (such as not being able to turn freely and being able to move within 1" of enemy models).


So yes, the normal rules allowing embarked models to fire would apply here to. The only question is whether or not a vehicle's movement speed can somehow be declared ahead of time, which as I've pointed out the rules seem to sometimes suggest is the case but most times do not.


THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER HERE.

Actually Yak it is not a special type of movement at all. The fourth paragraph is very clear that instead of moving normally, the vehicle is making a tank shock attack.

Neither Tank Shock or Ramming are movement, they are both special attacks that can be made by vehicles in the Movement Phase that entail physically moving the models to resolve the attack, but they are not movement.

"declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move" bgb 68 under shock


Automatically Appended Next Post:
it also states it must move at least combat speed

"The only question is whether or not a vehicle's movement speed can somehow be declared ahead of time, which as I've pointed out the rules seem to sometimes suggest is the case but most times do not. THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER HERE."
-Yakface

I respectfully disagree. The answer seems clear to me. When a vehicle's "intended" or "declared" movement is relevant, the rule says so, as in the fast transport disembarkation rule. When it's not relevant, the rule doesn't mention it, as in the fire points rule. Accordingly, we have no reason whatsoever to believe the vehicle's "intended" movement has any bearing on whether models can fire from fire points. And if the "intended" movement is irrelevant, all we have left to determine is how far the vehicle actually moved. 5" = combat speed. The models can fire.

-GK

I just want to be sure of you stance,

A Chaos Rhino with a pintle-mounted combi-melta declares he is going to Ram a Ultramarines Rhino by moving 11" but gets stopped at 5".

The pintle-mounted combi-melta can now fire on the Ultras Rhino because you failed your ram and only went 5"?

yakface wrote:So obviously if vehicle speed is determined solely by how far a vehicle moves (which is only known after the vehicle finishes moving), then how can the rule for fast transports be followed? Clearly the rules in some cases seem to suggest that you *do* have to declare what 'speed' you are going to move your vehicle while at other times they seem to clearly suggest that only the actual movement by the vehicle is what determines its movement 'speed'.

There's no need to declare to make the Fast Vehicle rule work. It's simply there to cover disembarking the unit before the transport moves. So it's solely down to what the player intends to do, rather than any need to declare to your opponent. It's just their way of not having to include a separate statement to say 'You can't disembark a unit and then move Flat Out'... If you disembark the unit, you're not obligated to move the vehicle at a certain speed. You just can't move Flat Out.

Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

WHy would it mean that?

Happyjew wrote:Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

No, you may not.

Something tells me that there was some sarcasm lost in text here, but we have already covered it.

Nm. However as tank shock specifically gives you permission to shoot (based on how far you moved), ramming does not give this permission.

A Chaos Rhino with a pintle-mounted combi-melta declares he is going to Ram a Ultramarines Rhino by moving 11" but gets stopped at 5". The pintle-mounted combi-melta can now fire on the Ultras Rhino because you failed your ram and only went 5"?
-Brother Ramses

First of all, wouldn't the chaos rhino have to declare a 12" move to ram since that's its max move?

That aside, what you've proposed is a different subject entirely. Now you're talking about the vehicle firing its own weapons rather than passengers firing from fire points. So we've left the fire points rule and we're on to the moving and shooting vehicle weaponry rule.

Let's look at that rule if that's what you want to talk about:

"The number of weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's Movement phase, as detailed below. ... Vehicles that moved at combat speed may fire a single weapon (and its defensive weapons, as explained below)." BGB p. 58

Note the language "depends on how fast it has moved in that turn's movement phase" (emphasis added) does not make any mention of "declared" moves or "intended" moves. All we care about for purposes of this rule is how far the vehicle has moved. In your example, how far the vehicle moved in the movement phase is 5". 5" = combat speed. Combat speed = 1 normal weapon + defensive weapons. Combi-meltas are "optional weapons" so at S8 it would be fired as a normal weapon. So the Chaos Rhino could ordinarily fire the combi-melta.

However, the ramming rule specifically prohibits vehicles which have declared a ram from firing in their shooting phase:

"This means that it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase," BGB p. 69

So in your example, no, the Chaos Rhino could not fire anything that turn because it declared a ram in the movement phase.

Hope this helps!
-GK

actually according to the ramming rules, a vehicle may not fire when it rams. so no C-melta action for the chaos Rhino

That said though, if there was a squad of 5 Plagues insided with 2 Meltas, they may still fire as you only moved 5"

After reading the posts here, and re-reading tank shocking/ramming, I've changed my mind. The unit inside would still be able to shoot.

I have always read as Bother Ramses posits.

Still do, really.
But I think I get what yakface is saying.

The point I was making was that if you then take that stance then you are deliberately following some rules while not following others.

The last point on Fire Points that you keep bringing up states that passengers count as moving if the vehicle moves.

You then state that the combi on the Rhino would not be able to fire because the vehicle moved as fast as capable and thus could not fire. But then you excuse the fast as capable to allow the passengers to fire.

So which set of rules do you want to follow? The ones most advantageous?

If the Ramming vehicle cannot fire because it is moving as fast as possible, how can the passengers fire if they count as moving when the vehicle moves and how fast the vehicle moved?

This is all conjecture though because you are still defedning the false premise that both Tank Shock and Ramming are movement when the rule specifically tells you that they are done instead of moving. Practically identical to the Scout Shunting debate in which it was shown that Shunting was not moving because it was done instead of moving.

Ponder this question,

If Tank Shock is movement, then why do the rules for Tank Shock have to give you the explicit permission to fire if the vehicle did the tank shock slow enough?

The answer is that Tank Shock is not movement and you need permission to fire if the tank shock attack was completed slow enough to fire.

Here is the main problem,

You folks are defining Movement as the real world definition not as to what the World of Warhammer 40k defines it. What some of you have done is combine the definitions of cruising and combat speed with real world defintions of movement to support your argument. That is not how this game works as proven with countless other arguments.

Tank Shock must move at cruising speed does not define Tank Shock as movement, but dictates what Tank Shock Attack consists of using a GW definition.

Ramming is done at the fastest speed the vehicle can go. That would be GW defined as cruising speed however that does not define movement, but dictates that Ramming consists of using a GW defintion.

As I said before, each rule give you permission as to what you are allowed or not allowed to do. Ramming tells you that you cannot fire, so therefore you cannot fire. If you want to drag firing points in then follow all the rule, not just what is convenient and apply the last bullet point as to what the vehicle is doing when it is moving as fast as capable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yak,

I reread your post again and I see a flaw in your reasoning.

If you cannot embark or disembark into a vehicle that has or plans to move Flat Out then you are faced with the decision of embarking/disembarking and not Ramming or Ramming and not embarking/disembarking.

The reason behind this is that the rules entry for Ramming tells you flatly that you will be moving at the fastest speed capable. That would mean there is no reasonable expection that you should not be moving Flat Out if you are Ramming and therefore you cannot embark/disembark from a vehicle that plans on Ramming. In addition if you do embark/disembark from a vehicle and then decide to Ram, you cannot because the rules tell you that you will be moving as fast as possible. The reasonable expectation is that you indeed will be moving Flat Out.

xlEternitylx wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

No, you may not.

Something tells me that there was some sarcasm lost in text here, but we have already covered it.

Why do you think its a no?

RaW you do get the 4+ cover save from moving in a circle. The P.63 note is about melee attacks, not flat out.

Discussed here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/398346.page

Brother Ramses:

Just look at the tank shock section and see how many times it calls tank shocking 'movement' or a 'move'. You are completely off-base here.

Tank shocking is of course movement and follows all the normal rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Any other interpretation would mean you could tank shock through impassable terrain(?), ignore taking dangerous terrain tests(?) and apparently if the opponent assaulted your vehicle in the following turn they would hit automatically as your tank would not count as having moved(?).

yakface wrote:
Brother Ramses:

Just look at the tank shock section and see how many times it calls tank shocking 'movement' or a 'move'. You are completely off-base here.

Tank shocking is of course movement and follows all the normal rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Any other interpretation would mean you could tank shock through impassable terrain(?), ignore taking dangerous terrain tests(?) and apparently if the opponent assaulted your vehicle in the following turn they would hit automatically as your tank would not count as having moved(?).

This, if it wasn't movement they wouldn't tell you there's a minimum movement for tank shocks.

Come on ramses Tankshock and ram not a move lol
There is no stipulation for firing from a firingpoint other than actual movement so if the tank only moves 6inches or less you're getting shot.

Yak I'm with you 100% on this one I do believe

GiantKiller wrote:First of all, wouldn't the chaos rhino have to declare a 12" move to ram since that's its max move?

No. You declare how far you intend to move for a tank shock. For a Ram, you just move the vehicle as fast as possible. No declaration is required, or asked for.

I stopped reading half way, but I see the general discussion is still being discussed on Page 2.

My view on this, there is a difference between the "Maximum speed possible" and "The maximum speed needed to cover the distance."

I mean if I'm driving a mile, yea I can cover it going as slow as possible in my car, but my car is capable of going well over 90mph.

Also, when you ram something, you want to go as fast as possible to cause as much damage as possible to the target. Thesably, your tank is going as fast as it can to do the most damage it is capable of to the target, but it only goes so far.

I know the rules it states the speed is generally based on the distance you move the vehicle, but at the same time it DOES say "The maximum speed possible." And from a logical standpoint, I can travel 5" at Cruising speed, thats the Maximum speed I can travel to cover 5" as fast, and deadly as possible.

This is just my view of things ^_^, trust me I'd love to get it off as well but I just feel that you can drive as fast as possible even to meet small distances.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Spirit of a rule has no place in a RAW arguement. As it stands if it moves 6" or less I can shoot out of my Vehicle even if I rammed. Why? Simply because the rules tell me I can

I think the spirit of the rule is an important guide in this instance. Consider these wordings.

1. Pg 57, col 1, par 3, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower."
2. Pg 57, col 1, par 4, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."
3. Pg 69, col 1, par 5, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a rather desperate maneuver and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle."
4. Pg 66, col 1, par 10, TRANSPORT VEHICLES: Fire Points: "Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at Cruising Speed that turn."

1. A vehicle moving at Combat Speed is advancing SLOWLY.
2. A vehicle moving at Cruising Speed is moving AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
3. A vehicle making a Ramming attack is moving AT TOP SPEED.

If my car can Cruise at 60 miles and hour for one hour and I hit a wall halfway through the trip, I was still moving at 60 miles an hour, not 30. Even though I stopped short of my goal, I still experienced all the advantages and disadvantages of moving at 60 miles an hour, not 30. And so,

4. If a vehicle makes a Ramming attack at TOP SPEED, if it is CRUISING SPEED or faster, then the models firing from the vehicle may not fire at all.

^- What I said, but using more quotes, and better worded ^_^

DeathReaper wrote:

xlEternitylx wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Does that mean I can move my fast skimmers 24" in a circle and claim a 4+ cover save?

"Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved, only take into account the actual distance covered from its original position. Moving backwards or forwards or driving around in circles does not help!" BGB p. 63

No, you may not.

Something tells me that there was some sarcasm lost in text here, but we have already covered it.

Why do you think its a no?

RaW you do get the 4+ cover save from moving in a circle. The P.63 note is about melee attacks, not flat out.

Discussed here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/398346.page

Missed the CC thing. But still, isn't there a rule that says you must have moved 18" away from your start point to claim a save? Or am I confusing that with TB?

Nevertheless, I would give the squad inside the ability to shoot (but not without some grumbles ), but the tank itself would not be able to.

yakface wrote:
Brother Ramses:

Just look at the tank shock section and see how many times it calls tank shocking 'movement' or a 'move'. You are completely off-base here.

Tank shocking is of course movement and follows all the normal rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Any other interpretation would mean you could tank shock through impassable terrain(?), ignore taking dangerous terrain tests(?) and apparently if the opponent assaulted your vehicle in the following turn they would hit automatically as your tank would not count as having moved(?).

And Teleport Shunt told you that you moved the model 30" and that it counted as moving yet it was still done INSTEAD of moving.

The very rules entry of Tank Shock tells you that INSTEAD of moving normally, you can attempt a tank shock attack. It goes back to the other argument,

"Instead of shooting , you can run."

And as I said, the rules themselves tell you exactly what you can do. Do the rules give you permission to tank shock or ram through impassable terrain? Then you cannot. Do the rules tell you that the tanks becomes skimmers and skimmers become flyers? No then they do not.

So as has been asked but deflected to different rules sectionstell that have no bearing on the topic, where in the rules entry for RAMMING does it allow you to fire from the vehicle?

Brother Ramses wrote:where in the rules entry for RAMMING does it allow you to fire from the vehicle?

I'm going to take a wild guess... And say it doesn't? o_o

Brother Ramses wrote:
And Teleport Shunt told you that you moved the model 30" and that it counted as moving yet it was still done INSTEAD of moving.

The very rules entry of Tank Shock tells you that INSTEAD of moving normally, you can attempt a tank shock attack. It goes back to the other argument,

"Instead of shooting , you can run."

And as I said, the rules themselves tell you exactly what you can do. Do the rules give you permission to tank shock or ram through impassable terrain? Then you cannot. Do the rules tell you that the tanks becomes skimmers and skimmers become flyers? No then they do not.

So as has been asked but deflected to different rules sectionstell that have no bearing on the topic, where in the rules entry for RAMMING does it allow you to fire from the vehicle?

There is a difference between normal movement allowed in the movement phase and specialized movement which has additional permissions and restrictions. Running IS movement, which is why you cannot move into impassable terrain, within 1" of enemy models, etc, while doing it despite the fact that it is non-standard movement. Similarly, disembarking is non-standard movement which is why GW FAQ'd to make it clear that you can't disembark 'through' enemy models or impassable terrain.

It is unequivocally clear that tank shocking is moving, it is just done instead of moving normally. The rules for tank shocking say over and over again that Tank Shocking is movement as do the rules for ramming.

You are trying to argue that ramming and tank shocking are not movement when the rules clearly say that they are. Just because Tank Shocking/Ramming are done instead of NORMAL movement does not suddenly not make them moves, they are abnormal movement in that they have additional permissions and restrictions about how a vehicle performing them can move...but that doesn't make them not movement!


And yes, with your argument you are saying that they are not movement so therefore when the rules for tank shock say I can make a tank shock in any direction that would mean (since they allegedly don't follow the rules for movement) that I would be able to move the vehicle through impassable terrain and/or through difficult terrain without penalty. The Tank Shock rules give me the permission to move in any direction that I turn the vehicle, so there would have to be a rule to preventing the vehicle from moving through impassable terrain to make that an illegal move!

And you completely side-stepped my other big-glaring hole with what would happen if your interpretation were correct: What would enemy models need to hit a vehicle in the following turn that tank shocked/rammed? If they didn't move, then are they hit automatically?


I mean seriously, just look at the rules for tank shock:

"To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed."


Not only do they actually use the word move TONS of time in these rules (throughout the whole page) but 'Combat Speed' is an actual term for vehicle movement! How can a vehicle move at least combat speed if it isn't moving?

Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

And the point that you missed of,

"Instead of shooting, you can run."

Is that when you run, you are not shooting because you are doing something INSTEAD of shooting.

How can you ram if you don't move though? Not to break into your conversations, but... In order to ram anything, you have to be moving, or motion itself has to be involved. In terms of the Shooting/Running thing, its hard to use that as an argument since Running and shooting ARE two different things. However ramming still requires movement. When the codex points out instead of moving you may do these things, I think its just pointing out the other options avaliable. Because in order to Ram something, momentum must be built up, by.. Well, Movement.

Arguing logic against rules still, I know, but a vehicle is never able to ram something unless it moves.

Brother Ramses wrote:Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

The underlined is not correct.

If you tank shock or ram you move combat or cruising speed.

tank shocking is not normal movement (It is an attack that gives you special rules on how to move), but it is movement since you go combat or cruising speed when performing a tank shock or ram.

Moving them at least combat speed makes it clear that it is movement and an attack.

Well Takes the problem lies in people let real world definitions influence their reading of the rules.

In this instance, moving a tank a certain way and at a certain speed so that it collides with another tank to cause damage is defined as Ramming.

Did the tank move from one point to another? Was the tank physically moved from one point to another?

Yes on both counts, but the mechanics of the rule do not define it, what GW defines it as is what it is written as, Ramming.

The same applies to Tank Shock. GW even goes as far to tell you that it is done instead of moving and that it is a vehicle attack. Yet the mechanics involve actually moving the model. Again a situation that the mechanics of the rule do not define it, GW defines it as what it is written, as Tank Shock.

This isn't the first time that moving a model and Movement have come up as an argument. Neither is it the first time that the trying to define a rule by its mechanics instead of what GW has defined it as has come up before either.

Yak, I need to point out that you saying,

"The rules don't say I can't Tank Shock through Impassable Terrain so I can"

Is not kosher in the slightest. The rules need to say that you CAN Tank Shock through IT. They do not, so therefore you cannot.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

The underlined is not correct.

If you tank shock or ram you move combat or cruising speed.

tank shocking is not normal movement (It is an attack that gives you special rules on how to move), but it is movement since you go combat or cruising speed when performing a tank shock or ram.

Moving them at least combat speed makes it clear that it is movement and an attack.

You almost have it. They are both attacks that use movement mechanics to resolve themselves. That does not make them movement.

Alright, since we are going to stick to the written rule:

1. Pg 57, col 1, par 3, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower."
2. Pg 57, col 1, par 4, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."
3. Pg 69, col 1, par 5, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a rather desperate maneuver and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle."
4. Pg 66, col 1, par 10, TRANSPORT VEHICLES: Fire Points: "Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at Cruising Speed that turn."

Ok, Regardless of if this is counted as a movement action, look at the highlighted text.

In order to ram, it is considered moving at top speed.

Cruising is considered moving as fast as possible.

Models can not fire if Cruising speed was used.

Regardless of distance covered, whether it was 11", 5", or 0.165", the tank moves Cruising speeds to reach that destination, even if it just sits in place, squeeling it's tracks or whatever the term for the tank's tires are, it moves as FAST as it can, i.e. Cruising speeds. And if you also notice, it specifically says in ramming: "tank must concentrate on moving" Which means it DOES move according to the RAW, even if the model itself doesn't, even if it rams into models in base contact, it "Moves" at "Top speed" not "Top Distance"

Just FYI, Flat Out would be as fast as possible for some vehicles.

Brother Ramses wrote:Just FYI, Flat Out would be as fast as possible for some vehicles.

If thats the maximum speed, then theres no question if the models inside can still shoot or not, since the vehicle is incapable of moving at a cruising rate, thus even ramming speeds for these vehicles (The flat out only ones) would be safe to attempt shots from.

Take - no, "this represents" means "the following isnt rules, we're just explaining fluff" - you cant use it as a rules argument, because it isnt rules. For example a Fast vehicle does get to fire guns at Cruising, and isnt moving as fast as possible.

BR - "instead of moving normally" means you are moving "specially" - you are still following the movement rules, with some exceptions. Also, you can move through I.T. under your interpretation because IT is a restriction on moving, and you are stating it is not rulebook Movement - meaning you are allowed to displace X", and have no restriction stating this cannot be through IT. This is nonsense, and when you reach an absurd result such as this you should see that your position is flawed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Take - no, "this represents" means "the following isnt rules, we're just explaining fluff" - you cant use it as a rules argument, because it isnt rules. For example a Fast vehicle does get to fire guns at Cruising, and isnt moving as fast as possible.

BR - "instead of moving normally" means you are moving "specially" - you are still following the movement rules, with some exceptions. Also, you can move through I.T. under your interpretation because IT is a restriction on moving, and you are stating it is not rulebook Movement - meaning you are allowed to displace X", and have no restriction stating this cannot be through IT. This is nonsense, and when you reach an absurd result such as this you should see that your position is flawed.

The question isn't about the vehicle, but the units inside of it, and the vehicle they are in ramming. And other then that, I have no idea what your pointing out to me, as I've already used the rules from the book itself to make my point on this topic.

Brother Ramses wrote:Yak, seriously read the first 6 words before the comma in the rules quote you just italicized. They are attacks made by vehicles that are employed with specific directions that include moving, but that does not make them movement as defined by GW.

You seem to be confusing the difference between the MOVEMENT PHASE and movement. Movement can (and does) happen in every single phase. There is standard movement in at least two of these phases (normal movement in the movement phase and assaults in the assault phase) and then there are a whole HOST of different specialized movements.

Running is non-standard movement (its rules say it is). Consolidation is a special type of move (its rules say it is). Pile-in moves are a special type of move (its rules say it is), Star Engine movement is a special type of movement. Disembarking is a special type of movement. Even Deep Striking is a special type of movement. Ramming and Tank Shocking are again special types of movement.

All of these things (and many others) are still movement that follow all the rules for movement except where specified otherwise.

Tank shock and Ramming are defined as vehicle attacks. How said attacks are carried out, in this case by moving the models a certain way, does not define them as movement.

Yes, actually they ALL do. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

And the point that you missed of,

"Instead of shooting, you can run."

Is that when you run, you are not shooting because you are doing something INSTEAD of shooting.

And the rules for Tank Shocking/Ramming do NOT say this. First of all, they say instead of moving NORMALLY (which you seem to keep leaving out of your quotes) that, by definition means that they are non-normal movement.

Nobody will disagree that they are non-standard movement because they clearly say they aren't. But there are tons of clear references in their rules that Tank Shocking and Ramming are indeed movement.

Brother Ramses wrote:Well Takes the problem lies in people let real world definitions influence their reading of the rules.

In this instance, moving a tank a certain way and at a certain speed so that it collides with another tank to cause damage is defined as Ramming.

Did the tank move from one point to another? Was the tank physically moved from one point to another?

Yes on both counts, but the mechanics of the rule do not define it, what GW defines it as is what it is written as, Ramming.

Yes, and ramming is movement as defined several times in its own rules. I can construct a logically supported argument to prove that tank shocking is movement, your counter continues to be: when they refer to movement in ramming & tank shocking they aren't talking about 'movement' as defined by GW.

So please, construct an argument proving what the strict definition of 'movement' is that you claim it is? Because you will not be able to do it (because it does not exist).

The same applies to Tank Shock. GW even goes as far to tell you that it is done instead of moving and that it is a vehicle attack. Yet the mechanics involve actually moving the model. Again a situation that the mechanics of the rule do not define it, GW defines it as what it is written, as Tank Shock.

And Tank Shock is non-standard movement, so what?

Yak, I need to point out that you saying,

"The rules don't say I can't Tank Shock through Impassable Terrain so I can"

Is not kosher in the slightest. The rules need to say that you CAN Tank Shock through IT. They do not, so therefore you cannot.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this.

Rules (for any game) work like this:

The rules give you permission to do things and then within that set of permissions they also place restrictions which narrow down what you're actually allowed to do.

So in the basic rules for movement, for example, they essentially say: infantry models can move up to 6" in any direction. This gives you permission to move in any direction up to 6", so at this point you can literally move your models anywhere within the 6" they grant. Of course, the rules then go on to tell you stuff you CANNOT do within that framework, so they say stuff like: you can't move into impassable terrain, you can't move onto friendly models, you can't move off the table, etc.

This is how all rules work. You need permission from the rules to do anything, but then once that permission is granted, you need restrictions to limit what choices you actually have.


The ONLY reason you can't 'move' into impassable terrain is because the rules for impassable terrain deny models to move into it. You have been claiming that Tank Shocking and Ramming are not 'movement'.

The Tank Shocking and Ramming rules tell me that I can turn my vehicle, declare a distance (full speed for Ramming) and then move (which is not actually a move according to you) the model in that direction until it encounters specific things (friendly models, enemy models, etc). What IS NOT LISTED is impassable terrain amongst those things, nor are there any rules in the Tank Shocking/Ramming section for what happens when this move (that is not a move) encounters difficult/dangerous terrain.

So the Tank Shocking/Ramming rules give me the permission to move (that is not a move) into impassable terrain because I HAVE to move (that is not a move) the direction and distance declared until I reach something listed that would stop me. Therefore, I HAVE to move (that is not a move) my vehicle into impassable terrain.

Do you understand? I'm seriously having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around how you can continue to confuse the basic nature of how rules function (permission vs. restriction).


And you have once again ignored the same point I brought up before (twice now):

If Tank Shocking and Ramming are not movement are you really trying to claim that opposing models would hit them automatically if they assault a vehicle that made a Tank Shock/Ram in the next turn because it did not 'move'? Would you really try to deny that a Skimmer which Tank Shocked/Rammed more than 12" does not get the 4+ cover save from enemy shooting because it didn't 'move'?

You do understand that you are arguing a ludicrous and unsupportable (with logic) position?

Takes - actually you haven't used rules, you have used fluff. Those red underlined sections are not rules - they cannot be, they start "this represents" (for example) and givws a reason For the rule . The reason I talked about the vehicl being Fast is that, if you take fluff to be rules you get a contradiction


Yak - agree with most of whhat you say to br, their position is absurd, however I don't agree with your conclusion on fast + dis/embarking units. The requirements for ram state yiu move as fast as possible- meaning 12" if you have embarked a unit. In other words I see it as a point in time determination, not an absolute. a superheavy eldar tank (12" move normally ) suffering one drive damage, should still be able to ram

I'm going to chime in on the Ramming section of rules, since that seems to be the specific point of contention.

In the Ramming section, it states you move as fast as possible. Fine, I understand there are two camps on this (one says you 'count' as moving max speed even if you haven't, the other states the you move, then see how far you have gone).

The reason I think that it pushes the argument toward the latter is that it then goes to state specifically that the tank cannot shoot after ramming. If it counted as moving at the max speed regardless of actual distance traveled, there would be no need for this rules caveat to even exist. You would either be going Cruising speed for normal tanks, or Flat out for anything that is Fast or Skimmer (but still a tank), and thus wouldn't be able to shoot anyway.

Further to this, it then only states that the vehicle cannot shoot, but makes no mention of passengers. It is for this reason I put this up for discussion.

Brother Ramses wrote:Just FYI, Flat Out would be as fast as possible for some vehicles.

Like I've said countless times Ramses Tank shock/Ram are movement. You cannot argue this at all if you are than know if it's not movement than it can't take DT tests.
I've told you countless times the rules under firepoints allow me to fire when I tank shock/ram as long as the vehicle moves 6" or less.
In a permissive ruleset that is all I need quite honestly, for some reason you think it's not movement and is some super special condition be whatever it may.

Now I ask you, Where in standard movement does it say passengers may fire? Short answer; FirePoints the same place it says I can for tank shock/ram beings they're a type of move ...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Takes - actually you haven't used rules, you have used fluff. Those red underlined sections are not rules - they cannot be, they start "this represents" (for example) and givws a reason For the rule . The reason I talked about the vehicl being Fast is that, if you take fluff to be rules you get a contradiction

Takeshi, actually. Second, if it's listed in the book as part of the rule itself, even as an example or explanation, it's a valid point to make when arguing the semantics of how to interpret what is meant. The argument is centered around the question of when you ram, does it make you move "As fast as possible" in terms of distance, or "as fast as possible" in terms of the available speed for the vehicle. Bringing in the logic of a fast vehicle, do fast vehicles allow passengers to still shoot if they move cruising speeds? Regardless of not of what the VEHICLE is capable of, the question is for the passenger. Going back to yak's mention logic, it's restriction and permission based. Unless a fast vehicle allows for the restriction to be bypassed with any of it's own permissions, it had no real place in the debate.

Now, back to the issue about my use of "fluff." its there to help understand the rule, therefore it Is part of that rule. Examples will always be a tool used In semantics, I've known this for a long time from various other games. Examples are the loopholes used to open up new options, and help work out rules, as we currently are trying to. Believing otherwise is the same as saying that the examples in a dictionary aren't valid ways to explain what a word means, by your logic of it being fluff since it's just there for the purpose of explanation.

When you ram, you wanna move as fast and hard as possible, not just fast enough to knock some dents into the target. As such, the crew inside a transport would want to prepare themselves for impact, and clear themselves from the firepoints invade crap goes wrong, or just to make sure no debris clips them as they fire away. I see fluff and logic as valid arguments as they are always going to be used when arguing rules semantics.

This says it all:

1. Pg 57, col 1, par 3, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed.

2. Pg 57, col 1, par 4, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed.

If the vehicle travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed.

If the vehicle travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed.

ramming or not, you have moved at one of those two speeds if you have traveled the required distance.

and you must at least move combat speed.

fluff is not rules Takes, and has no place in a Rules discussion.

I'm not sure why Takes is ignoring my most recent post, I think it lays things out quite clearly.

Just get your guys our of the tank before you tank shock move them 6" and then shoot said target. Then every one can stop getting pissed about a 5" Intended cruising speed.

Primestick wrote:Just get your guys our of the tank before you tank shock move them 6" and then shoot said target. Then every one can stop getting pissed about a 5" Intended cruising speed.

Well with tank shocking you can shoot as normaly beings you only have to move at combat speed
It's Ramming where the debate is at, and I could as well Ram, disembark than shoot.
However that's not where the OP's question is either.

It's Takeshi! Not takes! Gah! And I'm not ignoring posts, I just do not see posts at all times. I'll respond fully when I am able, for now I just ask people get my name right >_<.

Takeshi - the reason for my post was to explain that, frankly, trying to use fluff as actual rules gives a contradiction - for example Fast vehicles are NOT trying to move as fast as possible when they move at cruising, and CAN fire weapons.

The only rules based conclusion is that all that matters is how far you have actually moved. Just ignore BRs diversion on a move not being a move, as it is an absurd argument that leads to absurd consequences.

As I do not had the current codex to check on the rule itself, I will just go off of this logic, without using fluff.

When moving normally: you move the unit the distance desired, then you use the distance you moved to dictate what speed the vehicle travelled that turn to cover this distance.

When ramming: according to the fact it says the vehicle moves as fast as possible, you would check the fastest speed the vehicle is capable of, not the distance. Unlike normal movement where your distance dictates the speed used, the ramming reads as fastest speed, of which there are two (three If you include stationary).

Thinking as a robot (which magic the gathering has forced mr to do) it comes down to the words used in the actual ruling. Yes, normal movement uses distance to dictate speed. Ramming dictates it is just the fastest speed avaliable.

Without even using fluff, it is obvious that the fastest speed is cruising. It covers more ground, even if it disallows for shooting.

Mind you, I can not check the actual rule from the book personally, but it would all depend on the exact wording of the rule. If it says distance, then you should and would get your shot. I'd it says speed, I would say no.

Excluding login of vehicles that only have combat speed, or allow their passengers to shoot while going cruising, or any factor outside of basic tanks ramming.

Movement is movement, just in this case it is special movement - you are allowed to break some normal movement rules, namely going within 1" of an enemy.
The fastest speed possible for a vehicle 5" away from an enemy vehicle is 5", UNLESS the vehicle being rammed is exploded. So the fastest speed possible is Combat speed, in this instance.

This is RAW

Edit: Yak - I disagree that you cannot Ram with a vehicle that has embarked / disembarked and is Fast. I read "as fast as possible" as being point-in-time, meaning the fastest speed a Fast vehicle that has had a squad embark is 12", meaning it can Ram and must try to move 12" if possible.

As an example - a superheavy skimmer, like Cobras, which can move 12" normally but has suffered a Drive Damaged, could still ram - "as fast as possible" is normally 12", but in this case it is only possible for it to move 6". In your view it couldnt Ram (it cannot move as fast as possible) but that seems wrong to me!

I thought I was posting in this thread. . .


Ramming means the vehicle has to move "at the highest speed it is capable of".
While turning to see what that means, I pass the section on moving squadrons where it says "all of its vehicles move at the same speed (i.e. they all move at combat speed, at cruising speed, etc.)"
I note that there is no mention of distance.
I keep turning to see what THAT means.

I see that Vehicles and Movement states that moving certain distances means that the vehicles count as moving a certain speed.

From that I have discerned that we are all talking about 2 different things.
Distance moved means your speed is set at a value.
That value must be the highest possible for ramming, even if it is not the same value the distance would declare.

As I read it.

Why then do they add the part about not being able to fire if you already were moving at the highest possible value? You cannot fire out of any vehicle if you go at the highest possible speed (barring machine spirit, which would probably get around this also), so there would be no need to add that to the Ramming rule unless you could in fact move less than the maximum value in a ram.

Fearspect wrote:Why then do they add the part about not being able to fire if you already were moving at the highest possible value? You cannot fire out of any vehicle if you go at the highest possible speed (barring machine spirit, which would probably get around this also), so there would be no need to add that to the Ramming rule unless you could in fact move less than the maximum value in a ram.

Assuming that the author did indeed envision that moving at the fasted speed possible meant that vehicle would count as moving at flat-out or cruising speed (depending on the vehicle type) the inclusion of that rule would have been purely for clarity reasons, so that it was perfectly clear that a ramming vehicle cannot shoot even if the ram physically stops the vehicle from moving its full potential move. The rulebook is chock full of excerpts that are essentially redundant and are included simply for additional clarity...the inclusion of that text doesn't really confirm or deny anything.


Frankly, the rules are a mess. They really, really should have written the vehicle movement rules where you choose the 'speed' the vehicle is moving and then this 'speed' determines how many inches the vehicle is allowed to move. This may actually be what the authors intend with the current rules as written, but it generally seems clear to most people who read it that 'speed' is determined by how far the vehicle moves as opposed to vice-versa. If this is actually the way the author intended it to be read, I think it was a very poor choice because it makes writing rules for vehicles in the progress of moving nigh impossible.

In other words, you can't write rules for vehicles that are in the progress of making a 'flat-out' move because whether or not a vehicle is making a 'flat-out' move isn't determined until *after* the vehicle finishes moving (or at least until the vehicle moves further than 12"), which can create some really stupid issues as I pointed out in another thread, where for example, a skimmer moving flat-out from a piece of terrain into another piece of terrain apparently (according to how most people seem to play) only takes a single Dangerous Terrain test at the start of its move and since most people play that the vehicle doesn't count as moving flat-out until it moves at least more than 12", this means that failing that one DT test doesn't result in a destroyed skimmer...quite bizarre!

IHMO, 'speeds' should be picked when moving and then those speeds determine how far the vehicle is allowed to move (regardless of how far the vehicle actually moved)...and then in all the cases where actual movement of the vehicle should matter (like rolling to hit the vehicle in an assault, ramming damage calculation, skimmer cover save for moving fast, etc) these should all be described using the number of inches moved by the model instead of its designated 'speed'.

I really think this would have allowed them to present the least confusing set of rules for vehicles, both for them to write consistently and for players to understand.

But c'est la vie!

Regardless of distance covered, whether it was 11", 5", or 0.165", the tank moves Cruising speeds to reach that destination, even if it just sits in place, squeeling it's tracks or whatever the term for the tank's tires are, it moves as FAST as it can, i.e. Cruising speeds. And if you also notice, it specifically says in ramming: "tank must concentrate on moving" Which means it DOES move according to the RAW, even if the model itself doesn't, even if it rams into models in base contact, it "Moves" at "Top speed" not "Top Distance"
-Takeshishin

Seems like this article could be of use in this thread:
http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2009/09/how-to-distinguish-rules-from-fluff/

yakface wrote:The rulebook is chock full of excerpts that are essentially redundant and are included simply for additional clarity...the inclusion of that text doesn't really confirm or deny anything.

I disagree. I think it's important to interpret the rules in such a way as to give effect to as much of the (non-fluff) language as possible. While we know this is probably incorrect, we have to assume that the language that's there is there for a reason. Accordingly, we should not interpret the rules in such a way that renders language superfluous.

Hope this helps!
-GK

GiantKiller wrote:
I disagree. I think it's important to interpret the rules in such a way as to give effect to as much of the (non-fluff) language as possible. While we know this is probably incorrect, we have to assume that the language that's there is there for a reason. Accordingly, we should not interpret the rules in such a way that renders language superfluous.

Hope this helps!
-GK

I'm not talking about fluff, I'm talking about rules that are effectively redundant, but are included for clarity (so as to help readers not get confused). Authors include these anytime they feel as though the rules as written may potentially be misinterpreted.

The presence of this particular rules passage (saying ramming vehicle may not shoot as it is moving at top speed) cannot conclusively (logically) prove the rule one way or the other because it contains an actual solid rule (the vehicle isn't allowed to shoot when ramming) along with an explanation why (because the vehicle is moving at top speed). Unfortunately, the terminology used in the explanation (speed) is at the heart of the disagreement.

Or to put it another way, say in a perfect world that the rules for vehicle speed were crystal clear that you nominated a speed for your vehicle before moving (in all cases) and then that speed is what determined how far you were allowed to move the model.

If this were the case, then the ramming rules would be crystal clear (I would wager) to nearly everyone and that same passage could and would exist just fine saying the exact same thing it says now and would support the 'opposite' viewpoint just fine.


Now, don't get me wrong, I'm on your side (I think) in that I believe a vehicle which gets stopped during a ram counts as having moved only as far as it did for the purposes of shooting, but the inclusion of THAT particular rules passage can in no way logically support that interpretation because at the end of the day you never know why an author included a rules passage, all you have is the actual rules itself (which in this case are not conclusive in regards to that one sentence).

Speed=TimeXDistance

I have 1 hour to drive at Top Speed. If my car's Top Speed is 120 miles an hour and I am stopped after only 60 miles, I was still moving at 120 miles an hour, not 60. Even though I stopped short of 120 miles, I still experienced all the advantages and disadvantages of moving at 120 miles an hour, not 60.

I have 1 movement phase to move at Top Speed. If my Top Speed is 12" per movement phase and I am stopped after only 6", I was still moving at 12" per movement phase, not 6". How do I not experience all of the advantages and disadvantages of moving at 12" per movement phase?

Because, real life examples aside, the game rules do not support that position. At all.

Also, its time / distance, miles PER hour. You're also assuming instantanteous acceleration to 120 mph, where in reality s=ut + 0.5at^2 would come into play. Seriouolsy, dont bring real life examples in (its in the tenets, you read them, right?) and especially dont bring real life examples that are that flawed into it...

I think the rules do support this position.

1. Pg 57, col 1, par 3, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly in order to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower."
2. Pg 57, col 1, par 4, VEHICLES AND MOVEMENT: "A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is moving at cruising speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible without firing its guns."
3. Pg 69, col 1, par 5, line 1, TANKS: Ramming: "Ramming is a rather desperate maneuver and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle."
4. Pg 66, col 1, par 10, TRANSPORT VEHICLES: Fire Points: "Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at Cruising Speed that turn."

1. A vehicle moving at Combat Speed is advancing SLOWLY.
2. A vehicle moving at Cruising Speed is moving AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
3. A vehicle making a Ramming attack is moving AT TOP SPEED.
4. If a vehicle makes a Ramming attack at TOP SPEED, if it is CRUISING SPEED or faster, then the models firing from the vehicle may not fire at all because the vehicle meets the conditions of having traveled at Cruising Speed whether or not it traveled more than 6".

Some people are trying to reverse the logical conditions of "If X, then Y" to also mean "If Y, then X." I do not think logic or the rules allow for that.

Sorry, show actual rules for a change.

1) "This represents" means "The following is an explanation of the rule, in fluff terms"

2) See 1)

3) if it were truly rules you could never ram more than one vehicle - after all, your claim is that "top speed" has any bearring in rules, therefore "towards one enemy vehicle" must be ruels as well. Oh wait, its not

Again, stop ignoring the first part of the rules. "A vehicle that travels up to 6" is moving at combat speed"

This dictates that the SPEED you are travelling at is DEFINED by the distance you have MOVED.

Not the other way around, as you erroneously claim

Also, as far as s=ut + 0.5at^2 is concerned, you are insinuating a constant acceleration a. I'm pretty sure that my car can get up to 120 miles an hour long before 60 miles is reached. I am also pretty sure that a Transport Vehicle can get up to Cruising Speed before 6" is reached.

Consider it. You're in a tank, which, travelling as fast as it can, rams another tank. You're not going to be in any shape for shooting anything for a while, regardless of whether you go through the enemy or bounce off them.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Also, as far as s=ut + 0.5at^2 is concerned, you are insinuating a constant acceleration a. I'm pretty sure that my car can get up to 120 miles an hour long before 60 miles is reached. I am also pretty sure that a Transport Vehicle can get up to Cruising Speed before 6" is reached.

No, I'm pointing out that useless attempts at bringing real life into a game abstracted into IGOUGO turns is, unsuprisingly, useless.

You are also, again, entirely ignoring that the rules state the Speed you travel at is defined by the distance you have actually moved - nothing else. Feel free to show actual rules, as the Tenets of YMDC require of yuo, showing otherwise, if you wish to continue your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3) if it were truly rules you could never ram more than one vehicle - after all, your claim is that "top speed" has any bearring in rules, therefore "towards one enemy vehicle" must be ruels as well. Oh wait, its not

I don't understand the what you think is the link in my logic between "Top Speed" and "towards one enemy vehicle." You must move at Top Speed to perform a Ramming Attack. You cannot perform a Ramming attack against your own vehicles, and you must be targeting one enemy vehicle. If that vehicle is destroyed, the writers at Games Workshop have included a caveat to cover what happens next.

Pg 69, col 2, par 7, lines 2-3, TANKS: Ramming: "If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed the rummer halts. However, if a the rammed vehicle is removed because it suffers a 'destroyed - explodes!' result, the rummer continues to move, until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!).

I have included every rule I have referenced two posts ago. They were in the post to which you originally responded.

1-6" combat speed, 6.0001-12" cruising speed.

Durza wrote:Consider it. You're in a tank, which, travelling as fast as it can, rams another tank. You're not going to be in any shape for shooting anything for a while, regardless of whether you go through the enemy or bounce off them.

Real world logic has little bearing on the rules. Remember, this is a game where having a fragmentation grenade explode at your feet does nothing more than make you wait until your opponent gets a little closer before you try to hit him... and where you're completely immune to the effects of said grenade if you happen to be standing in the open.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
3) if it were truly rules you could never ram more than one vehicle - after all, your claim is that "top speed" has any bearring in rules, therefore "towards one enemy vehicle" must be ruels as well. Oh wait, its not

I don't understand the what you think is the link in my logic between "Top Speed" and "towards one enemy vehicle."

I'm pointing out the error in you using fluff as rules. Your repeated error, totally ignornig the actual rules you quoted

Ghenghis Jon wrote:I have included every rule I have referenced two posts ago. They were in the post to which you originally responded.

The post you havent bothered reading, clearly.

You see the part at the start of each speed definition, which tells you that the speed you are classified as moving at is defined by the distance you have actually moved? The bit you entirely ignored? THOSE are the actual rules, and they show the exact opposite of what you are making up here.

The speed you have actually moved is what determines the speed band you are in. So, if you have moved 5" you are, by definition, moving at Combat Speed. NOthing else is supproted by real rules

Just out of curiosity, some vehicles have the 'Lumbering Behemoth' special rule, which states that you roll a d6 for cruising speed. If I declare a ram, would I have to roll the d6 before measuring distance?

It can't hurt, since you cannot actually limit how far your tank will travel anyway. Roll before, move the first 6" then roll, doesn't actually matter so long as you have already declared that a ram is happening.

I'm pretty sure someone will say you don't roll at all, as you have to move the 'maximum distance'.

Happyjew wrote:Just out of curiosity, some vehicles have the 'Lumbering Behemoth' special rule, which states that you roll a d6 for cruising speed. If I declare a ram, would I have to roll the d6 before measuring distance?

Yes, however it's well worth noting if you ram something 3" away you will most likely not explode it and will therefore have moved combat speed.

Yep, as before - you move as fast as possible, which if you dont explode a vehicle may well be less than your total move allowance

I have another issue with movement and declared movement that maybe you could help me with. Correct me if I am wrong: those of you in one camp say that it is the actual distance moved and not the intended speed of the movement that determines the speed of a vehicle. As far as the rules are written, speed=distance. So unless other wise stated (as in Don't Press Dat!), for anything that makes a special move (like Ramming and Tank Shock) that requires a declared or understood attempted speed, that speed is irrelevant to the actual distance traveled for game purposes.

Following that train of thought, that the distance and not the intent determines the game conditions, am I allowed to measure for regular moves that do not require a declared speed (combat, cruising, flat out, turbo-boost)? I was told by someone I highly respect that to measure more than 12" from my Nob Bikers is to declare a turbo-boost. I strongly feel that this should be the case to prevent pre-measuring. But other than etiquette, is there any basis in the rules against this type of meta gaming?

Ghenghis Jon wrote: I was told by someone I highly respect that to measure more than 12" from my Nob Bikers is to declare a turbo-boost.

It would be a workable house rule, but isn't supported by the current movement rules.

In previous editions, measuring anywhere you weren't actually moving was a definite no-no. In the current edition, you're allowed to measure in different directions to see where the model can reach. There is nothing that says that if you measure a certain distance you are obliged to move that far. The only thing that is going to get you into trouble with the normal restrictions on pre-measuring is if you measure further than the model can actually move.